LUMPENPROLETARIAT Today on free speech radio, we heard coverage of the People’s Climate March 2017 in Washington, D.C. as well as the conference at Howard University. During the extended broadcast coverage Naomi Klein, was one of the conference speakers. She’s the Canadian author, social activist, and filmmaker, known for her political analyses and criticism of corporate globalisation and of capitalism (or capitalist modes of production); and she’s perhaps the world’s most famous, or influential, intellectual without a degree. (She was followed by Professor Bob Bullard, who obviously does have a degree; but that’s neither here nor there.) Naomi Klein is always a captivating speaker, very charismatic. Even when one doesn’t agree with her completely, one still pays attention. In speaking about government spending to address human-induced climate change, Klein invoked raising taxes, which means she’s unaware of modern monetary theory (MMT). We must spread the word, and expand our understanding of government spending and how our money system actually works. As one heterodox economist, named by Politico one of the most influential people, Dr. Stephanie Kelton reminds us that taxes don’t pay for anything. So, it’s a actually a myth that taxes pay for federal spending.

Large political actions, such as the People’s Climate Movement 2017 in Washington, D.C. as well as other locations across the nation (or last week’s March for Science), help us take the pulse of the nation and find where we can make connections and gain new insights from one another to overcome the power of the capitalist ruling classes, which are bent on putting profits over people, even putting profits over the planet. As Naomi Klein noted in here speech, we can’t meaningfully confront the challenge of human-induced climate change without fundamentally challenging the logic of neoliberal capitalism. In Washington, D.C., tens of thousands of Americans will encircle the White House and engage in a mass sit-in to protest the climate change denialism of the Trump administration. Listen (and/or download) here. [1]

[pre-recorded interview from the field by Amy Goodman, interview with Senator Sheldon(sp?) from Rhode Island]

[Democracy Now! hosts Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh speak with participants of the march, who will encircle the White House and engage in a mass sit-in to protest the climate change denialism of the Trump adminstration]

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—Last night, as has been the case for the last several months, the corporate media ‘news’ commentators on the cable networks were falling over themselves, especially on FOX News, to rehabilitate President Trump’s reputation with dubious poll numbers arguing Trump supporters are not regretting their vote for Trump. One FOX commentator praised Trump’s military decisiveness in various military theatres. The headline at the moment is that right-wing President Donald Trump will complete his first 100 days on Saturday, 29 April 2017.

For liberals, progressives, and the left, it’s a no-brainer that President Trump’s leadership is undesirable. The left, even liberals and Democrats, are in agreement that the Trump Presidency is bad for the American people, bad for working people, bad for the working classes. Yet, to resist Trump, while a necessary imperative, is an incomplete one. And there’s little-to-no need to expend precious time, energy, and resources into belabouring every instant Trump offends the American people and or the Oval Office. That becomes a form of junk food news, a distraction from the more substantive issues and news stories. What the left, and liberals particularly, are undecided about is the role of the Democratic Party relative to the Republican Party. What the left is undecided, or divided, about is where to channel their political energies.

For a long time, the Democratic Party has been seen as the party of the working class, or at least the party, which best represents progressives values. Unfortunately, this hasn’t been true for decades, perhaps, since President John F. Kennedy. Jimmy Carter’s Presidency was milquetoast. And Clinton’s Presidency was damaging to, among other areas of society, the American economy, with his administration’s neoliberal reregulation of the financial sector. Financial regulators were laid off per Clinton’s Reinventing Government initiatives in the 1990s. In the spirit of laissez faire capitalism, the ‘big banks’ were allowed to supervise themselves. And the groundwork was laid for the Global Financial Crisis of 2008/2009.

So, it’s good that we are now hearing some rumblings among liberals and/or the left, which are calling for a rejection of the Democratic Party. That’s long overdue. This morning Democracy Now! featured an opinion article published yesterday in The Guardian by Dr. Cornel West entitled “The Democrats delivered one thing in the past 100 days: disappointment“. Hosts Amy Goodman and Juan González made sure to play devil’s advocate in the interlocution. One gets the sense that, beyond any editorial gestures toward objectivity, Goodman and González really are centrist liberals, ideologically-speaking, who are quite deeply opposed to third-party politics, or People’s Party politics, and quite deeply loyal to the Democratic Party. We observe that Democracy Now! always gives third party voices (for lack of a better term), or alternative party voices, short shrift. Those of us, who’ve tuned in to Democracy Now! over the years, can attest to the fact that their editorial slant leans heavily in favour of establishment Democratic Party types. Third Party, or alternative party, voices are only minimally covered, such as Dr. Jill Stein getting one or two appearances during the 2016 Presidential Election. But, even then, Democracy Now! avoids delving too deeply into the systemic problems with the two-party system and avoids following the logical chain of conclusions, which would lead most progressives, who are connecting the dots between many issues, to categorically reject the Democratic Party and any notions of political validity of a closed, binary, two-party system. The audience of Democracy Now! connects the dots between the various issues presented on the show, which leads them to reject the Democratic Party. Yet, Democracy Now!, itself, seems to not see those connections and continues to structure its discussions, which touch upon party politics, in such a way, which apologises for the Democratic Party and downplays or works to negate third party politics. Some have complained that Democracy Now!‘s taking money from the likes of the Ford Foundation has led them to compromise their journalistic integrity, particularly around the more controversial issues, such as third party politics and 9/11 and so on. In this particular coverage of third party politics and the new Draft Bernie for a People’s Party campaign, Goodman and González spent the entire time trying negate the third party activism being represented by Dr. Cornel West and Nick Brana, the former outreach coordinator for the Bernie Sanders campaign. Dr. Cornel West and Nick Brana were striving to promote the Draft Bernie for a People’s Party campaign to drum up support and demand for a Bernie Sanders-led opposition party. Meanwhile, Goodman and González were trying to persuade them, and the audience, that no third party will ever have a chance, and that we should all just stick with the corporate Democratic Party. And we notice, too, that, when Dr. Cornel West was doing a decent job of countering Amy Goodman’s Democratic Party apologia, Amy Goodman simply dismissed Dr. Cornel West and Nick Brana and moved on to another story. Yet, when more centrist perspectives are being espoused, Democracy Now! will stay on the story until the end of the hour; and one will hear the concern and drama in Amy Goodman’s tone, when she’s really championing an issue. It’s very subtle; but we observe the pro-Democratic Party political preference, which underlies Amy Goodman’s journalism. And it’s very disappointing, from an intellectual and free speech perspective.

But Dr. Cornel West, much to the chagrin of Goodman and González, is correct to place the emphasis of the discussion, not on the failure of past third party attempts at electoral power, but on the failure of the Democratic Party to oppose the worst abuses of the Republican Party and the Trump administration. But the Democratic Party’s failures are, perhaps, successes. It’s not clear that the Democratic Party cares at all about its constituency, as its leadership essentially cheated Senator Bernie Sanders out of a fair contest during the Presidential Primary Elections. As The Guardian‘s Trevor Timm wrote, “Everyone loves Bernie Sanders, it seems, except the Democratic Party.” Trevor Timm cited a recent poll, which showed Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, as the most popular politician in the United States. Yet, the Democratic Party consistently resists his influence, whilst working to politically contain him.

Nevertheless, we recall, Senator Bernie Sanders immediately acquiesced to Hillary Clinton’s presidential nomination, refused to cry foul despite the existing evidence, and essentially betrayed his Bernie or Bust movement. Now, there’s a call to draft Sanders into a new opposition People’s Party. But, if recent history gives us any indication, Sanders is likely to disappoint his fans. We hope not. We hope he becomes a staunch advocate for working people the way somebody like Ralph Nader has done. But that’s unlikely, if Sanders’ loyalty to the corporate Democrat Party remains as unwavering as it’s been since the day President Obama called Bernie Sanders in to his office during the primaries, after which Sanders essentially capitulated even before the Democratic Convention took place. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen. Let’s hope the United States will soon see more robust political diversity, particularly during the presidential debates, than just the political theatre of the two-party dictatorship, to which we’ve been subjected. But some of us, given recent history, have very little faith in the political sincerity of Bernie Sanders at this point. [1]

The time has come to bid farewell to a moribund party that lacks imagination, courage and gusto

The distinctive feature of these bleak times is the lack of institutional capacity on the left—the absence of a political party that swings free of Wall Street and speaks to the dire circumstances of poor and working people. As the first 100 days of the plutocratic and militaristic Trump administration draw to a close, one truth has been crystal clear: the Democratic party lacks the vision, discipline and leadership to guide progressives in these turbulent times.

The neoliberal vision of the Democratic party has run its course. The corporate wing has made it clear that the populist wing has little power or place in its future. The discipline of the party is strong on self-preservation and weak on embracing new voices. And party leaders too often revel in self-righteousness and self-pity rather than self-criticism and self-enhancement. The time has come to bid farewell to a moribund party that lacks imagination, courage and gusto.

The 2016 election—which Democrats lost more than Republicans won—was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders was but the peak of the iceberg. In the face of a cardboard Republican candidate equipped with pseudo-populist rhetoric and ugly xenophobic plans, the Democratic party put forward a Wall Street-connected and openly militaristic candidate with little charisma.

DEMOCRACY NOW!—[25 APR 2017] As Donald Trump approaches his 100th day as president on Saturday, his approval ratings are the lowest any president has had at this stage in generations. A recent poll by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found just 40 percent of Americans approve of his job performance so far. Trump took to Twitter to call the poll “totally wrong.” This comes as former presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has emerged as one the country’s most popular politicians. The Hill reports a Harvard-Harris poll shows 57 percent of registered voters view him favorably. Meanwhile, some former Sanders supporters have launched a movement to “Draft Bernie for a People’s Party,” urging him to start a new progressive party and run for president again in 2020. We speak with Nick Brana, the former outreach coordinator for the Bernie Sanders campaign, and Cornel West, professor of the practice of public philosophy at Harvard University. His new piece in The Guardian is headlined “The Democrats delivered one thing in the past 100 days: disappointment.”

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMYGOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in Boston. Juan González is in New York.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, as Donald Trump approaches his 100th day as president on Saturday, his approval ratings are the lowest any president has had at this stage in generations. A recent poll by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found just 40 percent of Americans currently approve of his job performance. Trump took to Twitter to call the poll “totally wrong.”

This comes as former presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has emerged as one the country’s most popular politicians. The Hill reports a Harvard-Harris poll shows 57 percent of registered voters view Sanders favorably. Out of a field of 16 Trump administration officials or congressional leaders who were included in the survey, Sanders was the only one who was viewed favorably by a majority of those polled. Sanders has drawn massive crowds at stops on his recent speaking tour with new Democratic National Committee head Tom Perez as they push to reform the Democratic Party. On Sunday, Sanders spoke to Face the Nation about how the Democratic Party needs to change.

SEN. BERNIESANDERS: The model of the Democratic Party is failing. We have the—we have a Republican president who ran, as a candidate, as the most unpopular candidate in modern history of this country. Republicans control the House, the Senate, two-thirds of governor’s chairs. And in the last eight years, they have picked up 900 legislative seats. Clearly, the Democratic Party has got to change. And in my view, what it has got to become is a grassroots party, a party which makes decisions from the bottom on up.

AMYGOODMAN: Meanwhile, some former Sanders supporters have launched a movement to “Draft Bernie for a People’s Party,” urging him to start a new progressive party and run for president in 2020.

Well, for more, we’re joined by two guests. Nick Brana is the former outreach coordinator for the Bernie Sanders campaign. He has joined with former Bernie staffers and volunteers to launch the campaign. We’re also joined by Dr. Cornel West, professor of the practice of public philosophy at Harvard University. He served on the Democratic Party’s Platform Committee during the 2016 election. Now he, too, has joined the movement to draft Sanders, his new piece in The Guardian headlined “The Democrats delivered one thing in the past 100 days: disappointment.” In it, he writes, “The distinctive feature of these bleak times is the lack of institutional capacity on the left—the absence of a political party that swings free of Wall Street and speaks to the dire circumstances of poor and working people. As the first 100 days of the plutocratic and militaristic Trump administration draw to a close, one truth has been crystal clear: the Democratic party lacks the vision, discipline and leadership to guide progressives in these turbulent times.”

Professor West, Nick Brana, we welcome you to Democracy Now! Professor West, this is a point where Donald Trump is at his lowest popularity rating of any president in U.S. history at this point, as we come on the hundred days of his presidency. Talk about why you’re focused on getting Bernie Sanders to run, not as a Democrat—he’s going around the country with the head of the DNC right now—but for a third party.

CORNELWEST: Well, I was blessed to spend some time on inside of the Democratic Party looking at the ways in which we could come up with some vision. And I was convinced that the Democratic Party was milquetoast, moribund. It lacks imagination, gusto, doesn’t have enough courage. It’s too tied to big money. The duopoly stands in the way of democracy.

Now, when Brother Nick gave me a call and said that he and the others have been coming together looking for a way of breaking the duopoly and trying to allow for poor and working people’s voices to be heard, I said, “Count me in.” And that’s why appreciate my brother that’s working. We’re trying to get Bernie and the others to jump on board.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But, Cornel, the country has had a history of third-party attempts. Mostly, the third-party candidates on the right have gotten significant support. But they’ve—on the left, we’ve seen the examples of Ralph Nader, of Jill Stein and others in the past, some of which you were involved in.

CORNELWEST: Sure.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Why do you think it would be different this time if Bernie Sanders did take that step?

CORNELWEST: Well, I think the Democratic Party is in a crisis now that’s quite unique. And I think that when you have somebody like a Bernie Sanders or a host of others behind him who are hungry and thirsty, and especially the younger generation—you know what I mean?—especially the younger generation, and that’s why I think, you know, Brother Nick playing a crucial role here, among the others, is what excites me, because I’m desperate—you know what I mean?—as a progressive, real progressive, not no neoliberal centrist. I’m desperate. And we’re celebrating the hundredth anniversary of Ella Fitzgerald, born a century ago. That’s freedom. Can the younger generation built on that kind of freedom? And that’s what this third party is all about.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Nick Brana, what about all those young people who were supporting Bernie Sanders and came out in armies across the country? Here he is, going around with Tom Perez, urging people to run for office through the Democratic Party, reform the Democratic Party. What’s the debate among the former Sanders supporters that you and—what your wing represents?

NICKBRANA: There is an amazing hunger for this, especially among young people. It was 91 percent of millennials, people under 29, who actually wanted a major independent choice in this past election. And the majority of Americans actually wanted it, as well, and still do—57 percent. And so, those are staggering numbers in favor of a new party.

And we’ve reached the point where, to address what you were saying earlier, is that what we’re trying to do at Draft Bernie for a People’s Party, the group that we’ve founded to get Bernie to start a new party, is fundamentally different than what the Green Party, Ralph Nader, tried to do, in that it follows a successful model in our own history of starting a major party that can displace an existing establishment party. And that is, pulling politicians who have built a large following within an old regime party, getting them to show the limits of that party and what it’s able to do, and then having them come out, start their own party. That’s exactly what Lincoln and others did in the 1850s, when they started the Republican Party. That’s how the Republican and the Democratic parties began, is when they actually reached the limits of what people were willing to tolerate—in particular, with the formation of the Republican Party, displacing the Whigs at that time over them having approved a pro-slavery platform in the 1850s, and coming out, taking that base and forming a new party. That is what we’re trying to do here again with Sanders. Sanders has the tens of millions of followers. If Bernie starts a party, that party begins with tens of millions of followers. And in my view, Bernie already built the party. He did it during the primaries. That coalition that he brought together, that’s the party. It’s just about formalizing it.

AMYGOODMAN: Professor Cornel West, some might say the Republican Party is in disarray, that this is a perfect time for a strong Democratic candidate, like Bernie Sanders, to run. I mean, polls show, including, I even think, one Fox one, the incredible popularity of Bernie Sanders and that he could have won—

CORNELWEST: Absolutely.

AMYGOODMAN: —the actual presidential race, if he were running against Donald Trump. So, why not push for him to be within the Democratic Party?

CORNELWEST: Well, there’s no doubt that Donald Trump devastated the Republican establishment for a few weeks. As soon as he moved to the White House, he brought them right back. He brought back Wall Street. He brought back Goldman Sachs. He brought back the billionaires. And he brought back the military-industrial complex. And so, what has happened is that a consolidation of a far, far-right wing—because let’s just be honest about it: Donald Trump, you know, he’s a gangster in character, and he’s a neofascist in the making, so he’s very dangerous.

We do support a multiracial coalition against Donald Trump, but, at the same time, the Democratic Party refuses to engage in self-examination, refuses to engage in soul searching, wants to do the same thing over and over again, keep the same personnel and leadership, and therefore the last thing we need is another neoliberal, technocratic centrist running for the Democratic Party, when the Republican Party is in trouble. And, therefore, we have to have a Bernie Sanders figure or Bernie himself or somebody—we’ve got a number of people who are thinking seriously about this—not just on the national level, but state and local levels, to say, “You know what? Poor and working people need to be put at the center, and we need a critique of militarism. Dropping all these bombs on these Muslim countries, killing innocent people with no serious accountability, that cannot stand.”

NICKBRANA: As Dr. West wrote so brilliantly, the defining feature of this time is that we do not have an opposition party. We don’t have an actual institution in which progressives can build, grow power. And looking at the lessons of the movements that have come before us, there are, for example, the Occupy movement. The Occupy movement was a quantum leap in consciousness—

CORNELWEST: Absolutely.

NICKBRANA: —in the United States.

CORNELWEST: Absolutely.

NICKBRANA: But it did not succeed in formalizing that power into an institution. And so, when we see all of this energy in the Women’s March, March for Science, the climate march, there’s this incredible awakening, palpable awakening, progressive awakening, but our task now, I think, is to put that into an institution, in where—where we can actually build strength. And we’re at the point where something like that could really break the two-party system.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, I’d like to ask about the—you raise the issue of other people also considering a third-party approach, because, obviously, the question becomes—a political party is not just at the top. It’s at the local level. It’s at the state level. It’s in the city councils, in the state legislatures. How do you break the hammerlock of the duopoly of these parties that, when it comes to candidates, they mobilize their forces in every county and every town to assure their candidate is victorious? How do you build that structure?

CORNELWEST: I think when you unleash the energy of everyday people, it’s hard to know exactly who’s there. I think—I think we’ve actually gained a significant slice of the Democratic Party on the local and regional levels, because they’re critical of national leadership. They know how lethargic national leadership has been. They know how tied to big money they are. So you’ve got a number of local folk who say the only thing in town are Democrats. If a people’s party comes in, my god, they’d be open to it. But we’d get a number of other persons spilling over on not just the local, but the regional and national level. And that’s what’s exciting about what Brother Nick and and the others are doing. And I’m just proud to be a small part of this new development.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Nick Brana, the other big segment of the Democratic Party are the organized labor unions. How do you see the response of organized labor and their enormous financial clout and organizational strength on this debate?

NICKBRANA: Well, some of the labor unions actually tried to start their own party, the Labor Party, back in the ’90s. One of the, I think, lessons to learn from that is that they did not try to run candidates themselves; rather, they said, “We’re going to stay kind of within the Democratic Party model.” And that—I think we need to learn from that lesson, as well, and say, “No, this is a full party that is going to run candidates at every level.” And if Bernie were to do this—I think Dr. West is absolutely right—there would be people who would switch affiliation across the board—in Congress, at the local, state level. You would have just an amazing transition.

One of the reasons that we decided to do this was we looked—we’ve looked over the past few months at Bernie. Bernie is working furiously to change the Democratic Party, you know. And, unfortunately, what we’ve seen is that the Democratic Party is still losing supporters. That’s incredible. The most popular politician in the country cannot stem the tide. He compared it to the Titanic. Bernie compared it to the Titanic, a sinking ship, recently, the Democratic Party. And he’s right. And once you realize that people continue to leave the Democratic Party, you see that Bernie’s role is not necessarily as being able to bring people into the party. None of us can do that. People recognize that the party doesn’t represent them. Rather, what he’s doing is he’s slowing the dissolution of the party.

And if Bernie were instead—the momentum is towards an independent alternative. That’s why people are leaving the Democratic Party, even with Bernie there. If Bernie were to switch sides, join—go with the populist progressive current, the party would collapse. And that is something which would allow a genuine opposition party, progressive populist party, to arise, because right now the Democratic Party is blocking something like that from emerging.

AMYGOODMAN: So, Nick, what is Bernie Sanders’ response to this? Nick and also Professor West—you’re very close to him. What does he say about starting a third party, or even running for president on the Democratic ticket in 2020?

NICKBRANA: That’s right. So, this is something that we’re trying to convince Bernie, actively, to show him now is the time to do this. Now is when—now is when people are ready, tens of millions of people, the following that you built. You can actually bring this into a new party at the time. And that’s why I’m really excited, actually, to make an announcement on Democracy Now! and to announce that Dr. West and I would like to invite Bernie Sanders to a town hall at which we can discuss this issue and other issues facing the progressive movement. I think it’s time for the progressive movement to discuss this question openly, Amy, about whether it’s time to have an independent alternative.

When we started—when we started this process six months ago, about, after Donald Trump won the election, I don’t think if you would have asked progressives, is the—you know, in six months’ time, the party establishment is going to pick Perez, who was saying we should stick a fork into Bernie, in the narrative that he actually appeals to minorities, and actually—and be siding, voting for Trump’s nominees, and opposing overwhelmingly things like single-payer healthcare, I don’t think progressives would have said, “You know what? That’s how I think reforming the Democratic Party should be going,” and that that should be going well. And so, Dr. West and I—I’m very happy to have you, Dr. West, in inviting Bernie to that town hall, so that we can discuss this, this issue about where the movement should go.

AMYGOODMAN: Well, Professor West, there has been some interesting controversy. I wanted to ask you about Senator Sanders’ support of Omaha, Nebraska, mayoral candidate Heath Mello. Sanders spoke at a rally for Mello last week as part of the Democratic National Committee unity tour. While serving in the Nebraska Legislature, Heath Mello sponsored anti-choice legislation. He was endorsed by the Nebraska Right to Life group in 2010. In an article for Rewire, Imami Gandy wrote, quote, “Bernie Sanders and many of his supporters seem perfectly content to categorize reproductive rights and abortion access as a social issue—a distraction from economic justice and reforming Wall Street, which they deem the so-called real issues. And that simply doesn’t work, because reproductive justice and economic justice are inexorably intertwined,” Imani Gandy wrote. Can you respond to this?

CORNELWEST: No, there’s no doubt that when you talk about social issues—white supremacy, male supremacy, homophobia—these are not marginal issues. At the same time, class issues, economic justice, also militarism, imperial policies, Israeli occupation and so forth, these are all integral elements that constitute a progressive viewpoint, and therefore we ought to be critical of those who want to pull back on one set of issues and be strong on another. Same is true with our identity politics. We can talk about racism, sexism all we want. But if we don’t have a critique of Wall Street, if we don’t have a critique of militarism, if we don’t have a critique of the way in which class formation is so fundamental, and the increasing wealth inequality, then we have to be critical of each other. But it’s also true that all of us, in some sense, are going to fall on our faces. We just want to bounce back.

AMYGOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you both for being with us. Professor Cornel West, now a professor back at Harvard University. I feel like we switched places, Cornel. You’re in New York, I’m here in Boston. I’ll be speaking at Harvard Science Center E this morning at 11:00—

CORNELWEST: Ooh, wonderful, wonderful.

AMYGOODMAN: —as we continue our tour around the country. And thank you to Nick Brana, who is part of the Draft Bernie for a People’s Party. He is spearheading this. And we’ll continue to follow your movement at democracynow.org. Stay with us.

[1] Indeed, even the political grouping itself, calling itself Draft Bernie for a People’s Party, seems Pollyannish or operating under unreaslistic assumptions, at best. At worst, this group may be a shill for the Democratic Party to continue to lend Bernie Sanders (and, therefore, the Democratic Party) credibility and relevance.

But even the group’s representative Nick Brana paraphrases Senator Bernie Sanders’ likening of the Democratic Party to “the Titanic, a sinking ship”. Yet, for some reason, Bernie Sanders is out there “furiously trying to change it” or save it, rather than defeat it electorally with a sincere opposition people’s party. Brana

He compared it to the Titanic. Bernie compared it to the Titanic, a sinking ship, recently, the Democratic Party. And he’s right. And once you realize that people continue to leave the Democratic Party, you see that Bernie’s role is not necessarily as being able to bring people into the party. None of us can do that. People recognize that the party doesn’t represent them. Rather, what he’s doing is he’s slowing the dissolution of the party.

And if Bernie were instead—the momentum is towards an independent alternative. That’s why people are leaving the Democratic Party, even with Bernie there. If Bernie were to switch sides, join—go with the populist progressive current, the party would collapse. And that is something which would allow a genuine opposition party, progressive populist party, to arise, because right now the Democratic Party is blocking something like that from emerging.

You may have heard of the Communist Manifesto. But you probably haven’t heard of the Humanist Manifesto, which stakes out a set of principles along slightly different lines. (Although, those two manifestos do not appear to be necessarily incompatible.) In the case of the latter, various humanists have endeavoured to formally articulate their particular ideals, or unifying principles, since the drafting of the original Humanist Manifesto in 1933, whose signatories included academic and civic leaders, such as Dr. John Dewey, the eminent American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer, whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform. The establishment of unifying principles is always helpful for mutual understanding in any society, and especially for galvanising relevant political clout. Since 1933, various variants have valiantly vied for voicing the vital virtues of humanism. For example, consider this reasonable variant from 1980:

The central theme of all three manifestos is the elaboration of a philosophy and value system which does not necessarily include belief in any personal deity or “higher power”, although the three differ considerably in their tone, form, and ambition. Each has been signed at its launch by various prominent members of academia and others who are in general agreement with its principles.

The first manifesto, entitled simply A Humanist Manifesto, was written in 1933 primarily by Dr. Roy Wood Sellars and Unitarian Minister Raymond Bragg and was published with 34 signatories including philosopher Dr. John Dewey. Unlike the later ones, the first Manifesto talked of a new “religion”, and referred to Humanism as a religious movement to transcend and replace previous religions based on allegations of supernatural revelation. The document outlines a fifteen-point belief system, which, in addition to a secular outlook, opposes “acquisitive and profit-motivated society” and outlines a worldwide egalitarian society based on voluntary mutual cooperation, language which was considerably softened by the Humanists’ board, owners of the document, twenty years later.

The title “A Humanist Manifesto”—rather than “The Humanist Manifesto”—was intentional, predictive of later Manifestos to follow, as indeed has been the case. Unlike the creeds of major organised religions, the setting out of Humanist ideals in these Manifestos is an ongoing process. Indeed, in some communities of Humanists the compilation of personal Manifestos is actively encouraged, and throughout the Humanist movement it is accepted that the Humanist Manifestos are not permanent or authoritative dogmas but are to be subject to ongoing critique.

The second Manifesto was written in 1973 by Dr. Paul Kurtz and Minister Edwin H. Wilson, and was intended to update and replace the previous one. It begins with a statement that the excesses of Nazism and World War II had made the first seem “far too optimistic” and indicated a more hardheaded and realistic approach in its seventeen-point statement, which was much longer and more elaborate than the previous version. Nevertheless, much of the unbridled optimism of the first remained, with hopes stated that war would become obsolete and poverty would be eliminated.

Many of the proposals in the document, such as opposition to racism and weapons of mass destruction and support of strong human rights, are fairly uncontroversial; and its prescriptions, that divorce and birth control should be legal and that technology can improve life, are widely accepted today in much of the Western world. Furthermore, its proposal of an international court has since been implemented. However, in addition to its rejection of supernaturalism, various controversial stances are strongly supported, notably the right to abortion.

Initially published with a small number of signatures, the document was circulated and gained thousands more, and indeed the AHA website encourages visitors to add their own name. A provision at the end noted that signators do “not necessarily endors[e] every detail” of the document.

Among the oft-quoted lines from this 1973 Manifesto are, “No deity will save us; we must save ourselves,” and “We are responsible for what we are and for what we will be,” both of which may present difficulties for members of certain Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects, or other believers in doctrines of submission to the will of an all-powerful God.

Expanding upon the role the public education establishment should play to bring about the goals described in the Humanist Manifesto II, John Dunphy wrote:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being… The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.”

Humanism and Its Aspirations, subtitled Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933, was published in 2003 by the AHA, and was written by committee. Signatories included 21 Nobel laureates. The new document is the successor to the previous ones, and the name “Humanist Manifesto” is the property of the American Humanist Association.

The newest manifesto is deliberately much shorter, listing seven primary themes, which echo those from its predecessors:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. (See empiricism.)

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of evolutionary change, an unguided process.

Aside from the official Humanist Manifestos of the American Humanist Association, there have been other similar documents. “Humanist Manifesto” is a trademark of the AHA. Formulation of new statements in emulation of the three Humanist Manifestos is encouraged, and examples follow.

A Secular Humanist Declaration was an argument for and statement of support for democratic secular humanism. The document was issued in 1980 by the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (“CODESH”), now the Council for Secular Humanism (“CSH”). Compiled by Paul Kurtz, it is largely a restatement of the content of the American Humanist Association‘s 1973 Humanist Manifesto II, of which he was co-author with Edwin H. Wilson. Both Wilson and Kurtz had served as editors of The Humanist, from which Kurtz departed in 1979 and thereafter set about establishing his own movement and his own periodical. His Secular Humanist Declaration was the starting point for these enterprises.

Humanist Manifesto 2000

Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for New Planetary Humanism is a book by Dr. Paul Kurtz published in 2000. It differs from the other three in that it is a full-length book rather than essay-length, and was published not by the American Humanist Association but by the Council for Secular Humanism. In it, Dr. Kurtz argues for many of the points already formulated in Humanist Manifesto 2, of which he had been co-author in 1973.

The Amsterdam Declaration 2002 is a statement of the fundamental principles of modern humanism passed unanimously by the General Assembly of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) at the 50th anniversary World Humanist Congress in 2002. According to the IHEU, the declaration “is the official statement of World Humanism.”

It is officially supported by all member organisations of the IHEU including:

A complete list of signatories can be found on the IHEU page (see references).

This declaration makes exclusive use of capitalized Humanist and Humanism, which is consistent with IHEU’s general practice and recommendations for promoting a unified Humanist identity. To further promote Humanist identity, these words are also free of any adjectives, as recommended by prominent members of IHEU. Such usage is not universal among IHEU member organizations, though most of them do observe these conventions.